From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marteney v. United Press Association

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jul 21, 1955
224 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1955)

Summary

In Marteney v. United Press Association (10th Cir. 1955) 224 F.2d 714, 716, the trial court in a libel action refused to receive in evidence the headlines added by newspapers to a United Press news dispatch, which were not part of the original news story disseminated by the association.

Summary of this case from Montandon v. Cox Broadcasting Corp.

Opinion

No. 5084.

July 21, 1955.

Emmet A. Blaes, Wichita, Kan. (Roetzel Jochems, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellant.

Wayne Coulson, Wichita, Kan. (Howard T. Fleeson, Homer V. Gooing, Paul R. Kitch, Dale M. Stucky, Donald R. Newkirk, and Robert J. Hill, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.


Marteney brought this action against the United Press Association to recover damages for alleged libel.

On February 25, 1952, the United Press sent out the following news dispatch to Kansas and Colorado papers and the St. Louis-Houston newspaper circuit:

"Topeka, Kan., Feb. 25. — (UP) — Attorney General Harold Fatzer said today Wayne Marteney, President of a Garden City, Kan., grain company now in bankruptcy, has crossed the border into Mexico.

"Marteney, whose million-dollar grain empire fell apart, is charged with seven violations of the Kansas Warehouse Law and is free under $5,000 bond.

"Fatzer said efforts are being made to return Marteney, and the case will be taken to the State Department if necessary.

"News of Marteney's departure for Mexico came as efforts were being made to locate Mayor C.M. Henderson of Farwell, Tex., also a reported visitor below the border.

"Henderson and Marteney teamed to form the Garden Grain and Seed Company at Garden City, a venture that in less than four years was worth $1,000,000.

"Fatzer said Marteney went into Mexico at El Paso, Tex., but gave no additional details."

The first, third and sixth paragraphs of the dispatch were false. The fourth paragraph was false, in so far as it related to Marteney.

Marteney did not allege special damages. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of United Press on the ground that the publication was not libelous per se and entered judgment for United Press.

Whether a publication is libelous per se is a question of law to be determined by the court.

Jerald v. Houston, 124 Kan. 657, 261 P. 851; Brinkley v. Fishbein, 134 Kan. 833, 8 P.2d 318.

In determining whether the alleged defamatory matter is libelous per se the court should give to the words used their plain and natural meaning. It should determine what would be the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average lay reader.

Lorentz v. RKO Radio Pictures, 9 Cir., 155 F.2d 84, 87; Wimmer v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 151 Okla. 123, 1 P.2d 671; Marshall v. National Police Gazette Corp., 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 993, 996.
See, also, Hanson v. Bristow, 87 Kan. 72, 123 P. 725, 727.

Dusabek v. Martz, 121 Okla. 241, 249 P. 145, 146, 49 A.L.R. 253; Wimmer v. Oklahoma Pub. Co., 151 Okla. 123, 1 P.2d 671; Stevens v. Snow, 191 Cal. 58, 214 P. 968, 970; Knapp v. Post Printing Publishing Co., 111 Colo. 492, 144 P.2d 981, 984.

In some jurisdictions a publication to be libelous per se must be fairly susceptible of but one meaning and that an opprobrious one. In its opinion in Jerald v. Houston, 124 Kan. 657, 261 P. 851, 855, the Supreme Court of Kansas indicates that it follows that doctrine.

53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander, § 8, p. 43.

See, also, Brinkley v. Fishbein, 134 Kan. 833, 8 P.2d 318, 319.

In determining whether the publication is libelous per se it must be read and considered as a whole.

Jerald v. Houston, 124 Kan. 657, 261 P. 851, 855; Brinkley v. Fishbein, 134 Kan. 833, 8 P.2d 318, 319.

The news dispatch stated that Marteney was charged with seven violations of the Kansas Warehouse Law and was free under a $5,000 bond; that he had crossed the border into Mexico at El Paso, Texas; and the Attorney General had said, "Efforts are being made to return Marteney, and the case will be taken to the State Department if necessary."

Considering the publication as a whole, we think the plain and natural meaning it would convey to the average lay reader is that Marteney, having been charged with seven violations of the penal laws of Kansas and being free under bond, had fled to Mexico to avoid prosecution, and that it was not fairly susceptible of any other meaning.

We conclude, therefore, that the publication as a natural and immediate consequence would cause injury to Marteney and is, therefore, libelous per se.

At the trial Marteney tendered in evidence the headlines written by newspapers to the articles which they published based on such press dispatch. The Lamar Daily News (a Colorado newspaper) headlined its article, "Marteney Jumps Bond, Goes Into Mexico." The Great Bend Daily Tribune (a Kansas newspaper) headlined its article, "Head of G.C. Grain Company Skips to Mexico." The Wichita Eagle (a Kansas Newspaper) headlined its article, "Marteney Now in Mexico, Fatzer Says." The court sustained an objection to the proffered evidence of the headlines. We think the trial court ruled correctly.

It is a well known fact that many newspapers indulge in extravagant and sensational headlines to news dispatches which they publish. In Jerald v. Houston, 124 Kan. 657, 261 P. 851, at page 855, the court said: "It is the practice of some newspapers deliberately to put poison in a headline and follow it with a weak antidote in the body of the article." A press association has no control over the headlines which a newspaper uses in connection with its press dispatches. The headline is the independent act of the newspaper publisher. We think it would be manifestly unfair to a press association to hold it accountable for the headlines which a newspaper uses in connection with a press dispatch sent out by the press association. Full dissemination of important news should not be subjected to that hazard. The press association should be held responsible only for its own acts and the defamation which it disseminates.

The judgement is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed.


Summaries of

Marteney v. United Press Association

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Jul 21, 1955
224 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1955)

In Marteney v. United Press Association (10th Cir. 1955) 224 F.2d 714, 716, the trial court in a libel action refused to receive in evidence the headlines added by newspapers to a United Press news dispatch, which were not part of the original news story disseminated by the association.

Summary of this case from Montandon v. Cox Broadcasting Corp.
Case details for

Marteney v. United Press Association

Case Details

Full title:Wayne S. MARTENEY, Appellant, v. UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION, Appellee

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Date published: Jul 21, 1955

Citations

224 F.2d 714 (10th Cir. 1955)

Citing Cases

ATLAS SEWING CENTERS, INC. v. NATIONAL, ETC

In determining whether an article is libelous, it must be considered in its entirety and such construction…

Treutler v. Meredith Corporation

Tennyson v. Werthman, supra. See also: W. Prosser, Torts § 111 p. 748 (1971 ed.); I Harper James, Torts §…